PvXwiki talk:Real Vetting Update
See how just changing some numbers could make this wiki about 1000 times better? FrostytheAdmin 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) :Good and Trash have overlap... Toraen talk 20:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Anyone here disagree/agree Because I am really considering just implementing this kind of update, since atm everyone is talking and nothing is happening, and the kind of suggestion would wipe about 80% of the crap that pvx doesn't need. Discuss. FrostytheAdmin 22:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Let's have a vote: Favor #Brandnew 22:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC) # Misery Says Moo 23:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC) # 23:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC) #do I get to vote D: FrostytheAdmin 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC) #Frostels haz a good idea. For once. 02:15, 10 June 2009 #Frosty is to PvX what Obama is to America. His massive, black penis will lead us out of this intellectual recession the same way Obama's massive, black penis will lead us out of the economic recession. :> ··· Danny Does 17:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC) #Totally agreed. Smurf Ohai 18:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC) #Bye bye terrible Other builds. 19x19px[[User:Pika_Fan|'uɐɟ']][[User_talk:Pika_Fan|'ɐʞıd']] o^_^o¸«` 19:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC) # 20:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC) #Top quality proposal, Crow approves. --'Crowels'슴Mc슴Mootles 21:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC) #I herd I can keep theory craft.--Kammorremae 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC) #I'd rather see Danny's version approved but until then this is a good improvement that could achieve similar (if not equivalent) results. Put this in now and (if necessary) move to Danny's proposal later. C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic? 09:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC) # I approve, but some rules for the switching over need to be established. Many builds probably only have 5 votes on them because nobody bothered after it was made great/other cat. Also, we need some way to decide if great builds that were on the line before should be bumped up, as users may have voted with that line in mind. Switching over needs to organized, but the new system sounds better. Bad soles 23:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Unfavor #Personally I'd rather see Danny's version go through, the only difference between this and the current policy is the boundaries, which I think you've made a bit extreme here, and having a separate name space for meta and all the other builds seems to make more sense than a category. also you might want to consider moving it to the pvx namespace and slapping a proposed policy tag on this . ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 17:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) #Agree with Phenax. Danny's update looks a lot better tbh.---- The Liger is looking for a HA guild 15:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Discussion In response to Phenax - the idea behind this is to keep theorycrafts in the userspace, which, in my opinion and the opinion of at least a couple other admins and users, is where they belong. We don't really need a Theory namespace - PvX doesn't have to be a sandbox, it just so happens that, at the moment, a lot of people like to think it is. The rating requirements may be high, but right now, if something doesn't get 5-5'd, 5-4'd, or 0-0'd, it generally gets 4-4'd. If we consider a GPA scale, 3 is average and 4 is above average - if a build can't perform at least above average, why bother using it? Sorry if I come off rash or belittling - I don't mean to. ··· Danny Does 18:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :I think if we restrict theorycrafts just to userspaces, we are going to feel a real backlash from that. I think Danny's original idea was decent. It both promoted a shift toward meta build storage as a primary focus and would allow people to view some more creative ideas w/o having to hunt userspaces. Tbh, I have to agree with Phen. 18:36, 10 June 2009 ::But let me amend that by saying that I think we need a better way to determine what would end up in a theorycraft section. Just keeping any build that falls below meta yet is technically not trash wont work. We'll have to find another way to do that. 18:38, 10 June 2009 :::ups. forgot to sign. the only reason i included a Theory namespace in my proposal was that I was pressured into it. I'd personally like to see them all deleted. ··· Danny Does 18:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ::::I'd like it if "theory-craft" builds weren't nuked on sight, but I am a shitter.--Kammorremae 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ::::There is no point in having them all deleted, some theorycrafts do turn out good, and just because it hasn't seen play by top 100's in GvG/HA doesn't mean we should deny it's right to attempt to get vetted, if it's bad, it won't get vetted (especially under this policy with the upped ratings). PvX has a great rep for only recongnizing builds once someone half good team runs it, which is kinda of depressing in a way. FrostytheAdmin 19:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :::::How about banning people who have proven themselves to be a bad theorycrafter on a consistent basis? Oh, and something has to be done about generic templates being put together and then going into untested. I mean, just look at Untested TA/HA builds, THAT's depressing ~~ Smurf Ohai 19:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ::::::Guides, tbh. Or extremely generic template builds for Balanced, etc. I'm certainly not against banning consistently bad theorycrafters, either. @Frosty - I should clarify myself. When I say theorycraft, I mean obviously bad theorycrafts that you would never run over something else. ··· Danny Does 19:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC) My thoughts behind this Cut out the crap in the other section and some of the good section (no one want crap from there, pointless in having it). I read over the idea of a "Meta" section, imo having to move builds from section to section will be just turn out to be a pain in the ass, and with no build masters (aside from Unexist...) there will be noone able to enforce whether a build would be meta or not, probably leading to Admins to decide which, could end up not being so good. The meta tag would be much more effective if it had a link on the frontpage (possible replacing the "other" links), this would mean it would be openly accessable (and ofcourse that would make a meta section not worth it. FrostytheAdmin 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :imo, create Obs Whore position. I nominate Frostels. ··· Danny Does 20:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ::So...wait, what's the consensus on theorycraft builds? Blow up or no? 20:30, 10 June 2009 :::they're not getting /trashed automatically, under this policy at least. ··· Danny Does 20:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ::::Well, then....where will we keep them? Userspaces? 20:37, 10 June 2009 :::::They'd get vetted just like any build. It just happens that bad tc's would be likely to be rated under 4.0 and therefore get trashed. ··· Danny Does 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ::::::But...if they're not meta...wouldn't that be against he general idea? 20:51, 10 June 2009 :::::::There is no point in blowing up theorycrafts, this policy ups the standard of builds, therefore bad theorycrafts won't get vetted, therefore, no bad theorycrafts being vetted... FrostytheAdmin 20:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Amount of votes required for vetting If this proposal was implemented, maybe an increase to the amount of votes required for a build to be vetted should be made, since averages swing with dispraportional votes dramatically, and a swing like that could knock a build out of great. Maybe requiring 7 votes for "vettage" would be more advisable as a fuller average would be achieved (more votes means the real average shows). On another note, I am considering changing great to say, 4.6 - 5, since some great and meta build are below 4.8. Discuss. FrostytheAdmin 21:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :we currently have 153 builds in testing, some for over a year. As such while an increase in the number of votes required is a good idea, I see it more disadvantageous to increase it. Discuss. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 21:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ::Time limit on vetting, reset by each new vote cast? Builds without any votes get nuked after two weeks? Also, maybe expanding the space on the main page for builds in testing beyond 3 listings would encourage more voting.--Kammorremae 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :::sticking a time limit onto the vetting would be a manual job (i.e. users would have to check when the last vote was, add template if needed, if it's already there, remove it and re-add it to reset the date), which doesn't make it too viable. As for the second point (adding extra slots for featured builds) i'm going to ahve to say no as well, the featured builds template uses "expensive parsers" and a page can only contain so many, and one slot uses a lot of expensive parsers. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 21:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ::::I think the quality of a vote is more important. Too many people "vote down" a vote cause someone didn't like it....while others did. I mean isn't that what build masters do (did)? Not quite sure what to do about it but maybe a member vote rating scale. Just an idea. 22:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :::::Doesn't solve anything. I'm for 7 votes. It'll help keep crappy builds from being vetted until BMs, admins, etc. get a chance to see them. ··· Danny Does 22:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ::I do agree phen on that side, but that's a flaw in the wiki really, and besides, with enough attention any build will be voted on 7 times. I believe me and you were pushing for a form of tag that was put on testing builds that haven't been voted on in 2 weeks (or something along those lines), like how trial builds get abandoned, and then trashed, then deleted. FrostytheAdmin 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :::I actually created that list for that purpose, I could probably modify it to highlight those that haven't been vetted in ~2 weeks (and thus we could trash it or something) So as long as you and other admins don't mind checking an extra page occasionally, I'm sure I'll live with 7 votes. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 10:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC) ::::tbh, Main Page a link to a DPL with builds that have been sitting in testing for a while. It'd probably help them get attention. ··· Danny Does 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC) :::::Or on a Special page (yay another special page to check!). FrostytheAdmin 15:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC) ::::::I guess we could link to it on the main page, i have nothing against that, you'd just have to decide where. I'd have to say no to a special page. As for a special page, i'm inclined to think no, I doubt wikia would do all the programming (i say all, but if they've got the basic templates for special pages it's probably not that much) of things when a simple DPL page would suffice. While i could attempt to make it myself, it would probably take a while and be very buggy (although i do finish school Tuesday, so i could have a go over summer as a little project =p). ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 10:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Build Packs Should I wait to make the build groups untill this is done being either implemented or trashed? seems like a lot of work to waste if all of the crappy builds, or which there are plenty, get moved to another category/removed all together. Bad soles 23:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC) :We'd only provide build packs for great builds, afaik. Why would you want to use anything but the best, really? ··· Danny Does 04:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC) ::I'm inclined to say if this version goes through, that we do build packs for Good as well. The boundry line has moved, so there'll be some good builds that are probably the best build worth running in a given area, but probably not the most fantastic (e.g. some random farming build for some random place, the only one of it's kind, but it's stupidly slow or something) ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 10:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC) :::That's true. I forgot that this would drastically change the categories. ··· Danny Does 14:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC) ::::Honestly, I think we should wait until this passes. Otherwise we'll just have to re-do all the work. 15:04, 15 June 2009 13 to 2 says this is a policy. /wave ··· Danny Does 16:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC) :^. I have lowered Good to a round 3.75, so we still keep most of the good builds, but anything below that in the good section will be lost when the transaction takes place. :I am also taking a last call here to see if anyone has any last suggestions, since I think it is about time we implemented this. --Frosty Mc Admin 15:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC) After discussion with Misery, I would like to implement this proposal, however there is the issue with the main page, it will still show "Other builds". I would think that changing the layout to Great and Good in the "working" section, All in the "All" section and both Testing and Trial in the "testing" section would be the best way to implement this, if anybody has suggestions can they please look here, and discuss on the talk page. --Frosty Mc Admin 15:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :Sounds great to me. Just say when and we'll start re-classifying the builds. 16:13, 24 June 2009 Ok I have done a simple update to the main page which means we can now head on with remove the "other" section! --Frosty Mc Admin 19:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :Hmmm, I am not sure to do with this policy, since it has been "implemented", just delete? --Frosty Mc Admin 20:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ::archive under Real Vetting, somehow, imo. ··· Danny Does 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :::add a policy failed tag with the reason merged with RV or a similar reason. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 20:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)